From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Language desk
< May 14	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 16 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

Contents 1 May 15 1.1 Pronouncing Hebrew words related to Hanukkah 1.2 english to hebrew language 1.3 Allegedly and similar adverbs 1.3.1 Follow up question on disjunct 1.4 Using erzählen with von 1.5 offer advice for/on/about... 1.6 POSSESIVES 'S AND S' 1.7 Spanish wiki 1.8 Type O Negative 1.9 Mssrs. 1.10 What does the acronym 'Bebo' stand for 1.11 Urine 1.12 Arab for "prison"

[edit] May 15

[edit] Pronouncing Hebrew words related to Hanukkah

My son is doing an oral presentation on Hanukkah, and we are clueless about how to pronounce the following words: Sufganiyah and Chanukkiyah.

Any clues would be most helpful. 1001001 00:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

For Sufganiyah: SOOF-gan-EE-ah.

For Chanukkiyah: CHAH-noo-KEE-ah.

Roughly. Neutrality^talk 03:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't you mean HAH-noo-KEE-ah (or KHAH-noo-KEE-ah)? --Ptcamn 03:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The first letter of Hebrew: חנוכיה‎ (c)hanukkiyah is a Heth. According to our article on that letter, in Modern Israeli Hebrew it usually has the sound value of a voiceless velar fricative (/x/). This is the same sound as the "ch" in Scottish loch and German Loch. This sound may be difficult to produce for American English speakers; it is somewhat similar to /h/, but considerably rougher/harsher, due to the opening between tongue and soft palate through which the air has to pass – a bit to the front of the place of constriction for an /h/ – being constricted more. If you practice a bit, you can slide this place of constriction gradually and continuously all the way from the back (/h/) to the dental ridge (/s/) to the teeth themselves (/θ/, the sound in thin).  --Lambiam^Talk 16:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Errr, less scientifically, it's a noise I have found (during my travels in many different countries) to be universal - the "ch" of "chanukah" is the noise you hear before the disgusting people of all nations spit in the street; just shorter. --Dweller 16:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Erm, I had always pronounced them as follows:

For Sufganiyah: soof-gan-YAH.

For Chanukkiyah: chah-NOO-kee-ah.

But that's probably a terrible Jewish-American mis-pronunciation. zafiroblue05 | Talk 18:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

From our article Hebrew phonology, section Stress: "Hebrew has two kinds of stress: on the last syllable (milra‘) and on the penultimate syllable (the one preceding the last, mil‘el)." That rules out the last one of these two. But how do you pronounce chah? Like Cha-cha-cha?  --Lambiam^Talk 06:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

In spoken Hebrew it's (soofganeeYAH) and (chahnookeeYAH) the "ch" is a gutteral sound sometimes represented by Kh and is the sound made in the throat by some when clearing it.

[edit] english to hebrew language

Husbands english name is louis in hebrew it is lable. How do I write this in hebrew? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.80.182.83 (talk) 01:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

The name "Lable" as you spelled it does not have any obvious connections with any Biblical names. There is a Yiddish word "Lebl" which means "little loaf"; it's spelled lamed-`ayin-beit-lamed in Yiddish, but I'm not sure how it would be spelled in Hebrew... AnonMoos 03:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the word suggested by AnonMoos relates to this name. There is no Hebrew word that sounds like the English-language "lable." However, there is a quite common male first name in Yiddish, noted below by Lambiam, that would be the diminutive of "Leib", meaning "lion."

In religious terms, for some centuries now it has been common practice among Ashkenazi Jews to have a Yiddish "Hebrew" name; ie the name by which one would be called to the Torah, prayed for when ill (or dead!) get married etc. Many of these names have Hebrew (and English) equivalents eg Yaakov, Yankel, Jacob in (respectively) Hebrew, Yiddish and English. --Dweller 17:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Yiddish and Hebrew names are two distinct and often unrelated entities.

• The Hebrew name, generally given at birth, is as Dweller describes it: used in religious contexts. In the Ashkenazi tradition, this is usually of biblical origin and shared with a recently deceased forebear, to commemorate that individual and perpetuate the name in the family.
• The Yiddish name is the "Jewish" name when the given name is in the vernacular (English, Polish, German, etc.) of the country of birth. Often they correspond in meaning, sometimes only in sharing an initial letter or similar sound.

So it's likely for an individual to have three given names, that would share meaning and/or phonological similarity. -- Deborahjay 06:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Here I find the Yiddish name Leibel, written in the Hebrew alphabet as לייבל.  --Lambiam^Talk 23:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The name "Leibl" (not LeibEl), written as Lambiam indicates, is the diminutive form of the Yiddish word for "lion." Phonologically it seems closest to the OP's "lable" (rhymes with "table;" or "label"?). The association with the English name Louis is the shared initial letter, a common naming practice among Jews of Ashkenazic (Yiddish-speaking) origins. Otherwise, there's no particular correspondence with the English-language men's name Louis (pronounced LEW-is, rather than as the French, lou-EE), nor with any Hebrew name. The Hebrew word for lion is aryeh, and for lion cub, gur-aryeh, with no phonological correspondence. -- Deborahjay 05:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allegedly and similar adverbs

We often see sentences in the form "X allegedly committed illegal act Y". "Allegedly" is an adverb of manner. Adverbs of manner describe the manner in which an act was done. An adverb can, theoretically, be removed without altering the essential meaning of the act described. (E.g. If the initial sentence is "He walked quickly", it's still true to say "He walked".) However, if we remove "allegedly", this turns it into a statement that X did Y, which dramatically alters the meaning. It's equivalent to replacing "allegedly" with "definitely". Does this suggest that we need to expand our definition of what the function of an adverb is? In particular, if after investigation it's determined that X did nothing illegal at all, the original sentence is describing an act that never occurred. Or, maybe, we should regard the verb not as "committed" but "allegedly committed". But that would require a hyphen, I guess ("X allegedly-committed illegal act Y"; but even then, it's still saying X did something he may not have done at all). Does anyone have the faintest idea of what I'm talking about? JackofOz 04:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I've just realised that the sentence "An adverb can, theoretically, be removed without altering the essential meaning of the act described" is another example of this. If I remove "theoretically", the sentence then provides the very example of what I'm arguing is not always the case. JackofOz 04:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

W.M. Baskervill, writing in "An English Grammar" (1896), asserts that there are also "adverbs of assertion":

telling the speaker's belief or disbelief in a statement, or how far he believes it to be true; as perhaps, maybe, surely, possibly, probably, not, etc.

I tend to chalk these kinds of anomalies up to fitting the round peg of English grammar into the square hole of Latin wannabe-ism. link --TotoBaggins 04:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Not at all: Latin too has adverbs like fortasse "possibly". --Ptcamn 05:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. In the cases I'm talking about, the newspaper/TV reporter is not taking any kind of stance about the guilt or innocence of X, but merely stating the fact that someone has alleged that X did Y. I suspect this crept into the language at some point, as a shorthand way of saying just that, eg. "The police have alleged that X did Y". Until the court or whoever says otherwise, it is not the case that X did Y, allegedly or any other way. JackofOz 05:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Modern linguists tend to define parts of speech on grammatical rather than semantic grounds: "allegedly" and "quickly" are adverbs simply because it's possible to say "X allegedly committed illegal act Y" and "X quickly committed illegal act Y", while things like *X knife committed illegal act Y" or *X bad committed illegal act Y" are ungrammatical.

Where'd you get that definition of adverb, anyway? I don't think it's standard. --Ptcamn 05:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Is allegedly, unlike quickly, a disjunct? ---Sluzzelin talk 12:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

In traditional (peg-deforming) grammar, one sometimes speaks of words that modify the entire sentence. For example, and for what it's worth, Smyth's Greek Grammar (traditional old-fashioned) section 1094 distinguishes "ordinary adverbs" from "sentence adverbs (or particles)...adverbs that affect the sentence as a whole," under which he includes words translatable as "surely," "perhaps," and "not." Wareh 15:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

When X-ly is an adverb of manner, it may be replaced by in an X manner or in an X way. For example, Reality cruelly ended my reverie means: Reality ended my reverie in a cruel manner. So the manner in which reality put an end to my happy reverie was cruel. And Customs official stealthily took bribes from travellers caught smuggling is the same as Customs official took bribes in a stealthy way from travellers caught smuggling. The way in which the villain of the story took the money was stealthy. But you cannot rephrase Customs official allegedly took bribes from travellers caught smuggling as Customs official took bribes in an alleged way from travellers caught smuggling. That means something different. Therefore allegedly should not be considered an adverb of manner here. It does fit the description of "sentence adverb" above as well as that given under disjunct – a term I had not heard before, but also used here. I hope that by stating all this I am not infringing upon a patent.  --Lambiam^Talk 15:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You're ok, as long as you don't choose to produce a Tarzan-type yell while doing so. :) --TotoBaggins 17:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The simplest example of an adverb that qualifies away from the "essential meaning" is not. JackofOz's problem with "allegedly" seems to be the same one many people have with "hopefully". Adverbs can be adjuncts, subjuncts, conjuncts, and/or disjuncts. Just as one and the same word can function as noun and verb in different contexts, so too can an adverb function as subjunct in one, adjunct of degree in another, and adjunct of modality in still another. jnestorius^(talk) 22:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I, too, was thinking of an analogy to "hopefully", which was once considered an incorrect use: hopefully: "it is hoped; if all goes well: Hopefully, we will get to the show on time."

"—Usage note: Although some strongly object to its use as a sentence modifier, hopefully meaning “it is hoped (that)” has been in use since the 1930s and is fully standard in all varieties of speech and writing: Hopefully, tensions between the two nations will ease. This use of hopefully is parallel to that of certainly, curiously, frankly, regrettably, and other sentence modifiers."

So, "Joe allegedly robbed the bank" = "Allegedly, Joe robbed the bank" = "(It is alleged that) Joe robbed the bank."

Or "allegedly" might modify, not how Joe robbed the bank, but (by implication) how the police statement was made: "(The police stated) allegedly, (i.e., without the proof provided by conviction in court) Joe robbed the bank."

In US criminal theory, only a jury or judge can state as a fact that someone has committed a certain crime. It is the job of the police to make such statements, but they make such statements allegedly, i. e. in an alleged (not yet legally proven) manner, just as they might make such a statement carelessly, carefully, loudly, etc.

Comments? Unimaginative Username 00:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for those very informative responses, folks. It now seems clear that "allegedly" is a disjunct, or perhaps a sentence adverb, in the example I gave. I wrongfully mischaracterised it as an adverb of manner, so I shamefully and sheepishly hang my head. JackofOz 00:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Follow up question on disjunct

The article on disjunct states the following:

"Sometimes, the same word or phrase can be interpreted either as a disjunct or as a simple adjunct:

They worked honestly in an underground diamond mine run by elves."

Can honestly honestly be interpreted as a disjunct here? If not, can someone come up with a better example? Thank you in advance. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you honestly say that it can't be interpreted as a disjunct?  --Lambiam^Talk 10:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hah! Hmm, maybe I honestly misinterpreted the example's intention. I thought it was supposed to be ambiguous, in which case, I think, the sentence's word order should be:

"They honestly worked in an underground diamond mine run by elves."

The ambiguity is conceivable. I could be telling my niece:

"You know, your great-grandparents once worked for elves."

Niece: "You're messing with me, there are no such beings as elves."

"No, they honestly worked in an underground diamond mine run by elves."

But maybe the sentence is merely exemplifying an adjunct usage of honestly, with no disjunct ambiguity? ---Sluzzelin talk 11:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The statement in the article is (in my opinion) correct, but the example is not, or is at least not felicitous, if meant to illustrate it. Here is another ambiguous case:

I will walk the road to paradise, and they will hopefully follow me.

 --Lambiam^Talk 21:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else here agree with me that the Disjunct (linguistics) article is in error in describing "sentence adverbs" as a subset of disjuncts? My problem is that a sentence adverb like "not" (though I've always thought of main verbs as being negated in negative clauses, everyone seems to call it a sentence adv.) is certainly not inessential to the sense of the sentence. My tentative conclusion is that either the article's definition ("extra" information about the speaker's attitude) needs to be fixed, or the classification (sentence adverbs an example of disjuncts) needs to be corrected. Wareh 17:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

IMHO. using consistently correct word order avoids ambiguity. (or, "Consistently using correct word order avoids ambiguity. But "Using correct word order consistently avoids ambiguity" leaves open whether we are consistently being correct, or consistently avoiding ambiguity.) "They worked honestly in a mine" makes clear that "honestly" describes how they worked. "Honestly, they worked in a mine" indicates the sentence adverb, with "honestly" describing how the speaker is speaking, vs. e. g., "Allegedly, they worked in a mine." (as in the OP) "I'm telling you the truth: They worked in a mine." The example, "They honestly worked in a mine" does leave both possibilities open, and therefore, should be avoided. Not every possible sentence construction is desirable. If there is a compelling reason why the affirmation of truth must come immediately before the verb, one could choose different words: "They did, in fact, work in a mine." Would that writers would consider possible misinterpretations when choosing their words! Unimaginative Username 20:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources that classify "not" as a sentence adverb? The business of classifying adverbs seems to me a bit old-fashioned – there are always somehow cases that don't comfortably fit in the classification scheme – but if we follow the definition given in our article Disjunct (linguistics), well, in a sentence like "This morning the car would not start", the word "not" does not convey the mood, attitude or sentiments of the speaker, and does not have the character of a sentence adverb. Not surprisingly, you cannot say: *"Not, the car would start this morning". Compare this with "The car will hopefully be fixed by the end of the week".  --Lambiam^Talk 21:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

My only source for "not" as a sentence adverb is Smyth's Greek Grammar, as linked above.[1] I'm not committed to the idea myself at all (as I suggested, I certainly tell my Greek students that in negated clauses, "not" modifies the main verb, etc.). But since I assume Smyth didn't invent the notion on his own, I wanted to make sure that the article's confident assertion that "sentence adverbs" are completely contained within the notion presented (certainly, maybe, etc.) seems correct to editors more interested & expert in linguistics. Wareh 13:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

One could speak the sentence "The car will hopefully be fixed by the end of the week", but when written, wouldn't it be best to enclose hopefully with commas? ("The car will, hopefully, be fixed by the end of the week"). To indicate that it's parenthetical, and could just as well have started the sentence? ("Hopefully, the car will be fixed by the end of the week"). Cars do not enjoy hope and cannot be full of it; their owners do (and often are). :) JackofOz 23:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, ideally, all speakers would not only consider possible misinterpretations when choosing their words, but also pepper their prose with proper punctuation. Ideally, the car would not have broken down in the first place. And there are still plenty of folks who feel that this use of the word hopefully is hopelessly wrong anyway, also when explicitly parenthetical. But – as far as I know – putting the word right there in the middle and leaving out these commas is not wrong. A literary author might deliberately omit the commas for a stylistic effect. Many speakers, in saying this, would have no problem with the word order and would certainly not insert a pause before or after the word hopefully.  --Lambiam^Talk 00:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I changed the example on the disjunct page before I scrolled down and saw this question. (It now reads "They honestly worked in an underground diamond mine run by elves.", illustrating the possible ambiguity of such sentences.) Tesseran 08:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Using erzählen with von

I'm learning this word myself. When I see some sentences using this word with von, I don't understand and try to consult dictionaries. Yet, I still got no answers.

I type some two sample sentences here. Would someone explain how to use the strcture, please?

Helga erzählt der Mutter von ihrer Lehrerin.

Question: Von wem erzählen Sie Ihren Eltern? (Herr Braun)

My book says this is SUBJECT + VERB (+ DATIV) + PRÄPOSITIONALOBJEKT:von.

--Fitzwilliam 05:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Von in this case means "about" and is used the same way. Helga erzählt der Mutter von ihrer Lehrerin = "Helga tells Mother about her teacher". Von wem erzählen Sie Ihren Eltern? = "Who are you telling your parents about?" —Angr 05:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I had thought the verb would change its meaning when used with von.--Fitzwilliam 07:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] offer advice for/on/about...

which preposition should i use? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 166.121.36.10 (talk) 06:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Depends what you're offering advice on/for/about. 213.48.15.234 06:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"This book contains advice on framistan maintenance for novices." on and about are often synonymous. —Tamfang 07:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

On is generally to be preferred (at least in British English) but there are contexts in which about is better (e.g. "I'd like your advice about something"). The OED citations have twice as many of the former. For most purposes, why use the vague "about" when you can use the more definite "on"? "For" addresses the person advised rather than the topic of the advice.--Shantavira 08:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POSSESIVES 'S AND S'

WHICH IS THE CORRECT USE OF 'S/S'

Dr. Evans's nurse has the report. Dr. Evans' nurse has the report.

Dr. Gimenez's nurse has the report. Dr. Gimenez' nurse has the report. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.172.10.35 (talk) 14:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

On Wikipedia, "Dr. Evans's" is preferred: see Wikipedia:Manual_of_style#Usage. Presumably the same for Gimenez. However, for plural nouns, just ' is used (I think): e.g. "Dr. Evans's nurse will have the report in two days' time". There are of course exceptions. The Guardian style guide agrees. So does the US government style guide. The York University style guide does not. Who are you writing for? If they have a style, follow it, otherwise it looks like you have a number of options. Algebraist 15:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It's another house style question. As someone reasonably well-versed in current mainstream UK practice, I'd say apostrophe-S is the straightforward rule: Dr Evans's office, Dr Gimenez's stethoscope, Calais's Rodin sculptures, Dickens's house, Tom Hanks's last film.

You might just be able to contrive examples where a plural-sounding noun can be treated as singular, but where it really would sound wrong with an apostrophe-S: for instance, "The Lindisfarne Gospels is in the British Library" can sound correct depending on house style, but "The Gospels's main claim to fame..." sounds horrible. Well, it did at first, but now I've said it so many times it sounds OK.

The answer depends on who you're working for, especially if they're writing the cheques. - RA —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.66.229.8 (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

In the book "eats shoots and leaves" by Lynne Truss, I think there was a section on this that had something to do with what type of name it was but I'ver forgotten it. Does anyone have the book handy? Storeye 06:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If Lynne Truss were here, she'd take you to task for not spelling and punctuating the name of her book correctly; in particular, for omitting the comma after "eats", without which the entire point of the pun is missed. Either that, or she'd wring her hands, gnash her teeth and pull out her hair, wailing pitifully "Where have I gone wrong!!"  :) JackofOz 23:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It's very interesting to me that "RA" above makes reference to one convention or the other "sounding horrible". The issue of how to pronounce the possessive form of Jesus is independent of whether you write it Jesus' or Jesus's. Tesseran 08:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish wiki

The article about the phrase "veni, vidi, vici" on the Spanish wikipedia has recently been moved to, apparently under the assumption that "vinci" is the correct perfect tense of "vincere". This seems to be true in Spanish, but it's definitely not in Latin, and it amazes me that someone could screw up such a well-known phrase like that. I don't have an account there and I don't know enough Spanish to fix it myself, so can someone help? (I asked this on Talk:Veni, vidi, vici too, but nothing happened.) Adam Bishop 14:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved it back. I hope it sticks; I don't know enough Spanish to engage in an edit war. —Angr 18:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Type O Negative

In the Type O Negative song She Burned Me Down. Off the Album Dead Again. The singer sings in Icelandic or Russian or some thing, what language is he speaking and what is he saying? Thanks81.144.161.223 15:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mssrs.

Is it acceptable to use the 'Mssrs.' for a group of mixed gender? If not, is there an alternative pluralised title? Ninebucks 15:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that the answers are no, and no. If you are using the title in an address, you could omit the title from the address entirely (e.g. "Smith, Jones, and Rodriguez; 15 Wiki Way; London, Ontario N9A 3H5" or whatever). If you are using the title in a salutation, you might think about replacing the titles and names with a more general greeting, such as "Dear Neighbors", "Dear Occupants", "Dear Colleagues" or whatever. Alternatively, you could list each with his or her title ("Dear Mr. Smith, Ms. Jones, and Mr. Rodriguez"). It seems to be rather awkward to use "Dear Messrs. Smith and Rodriguez and Ms. Jones". In fact, "Mssrs." is very seldom used these days in any context. Marco polo 18:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what made you think of that address, but N9A 3H5 is a real postal code in Windsor, Ontario! Adam Bishop 22:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"Gentlepersons:" (my own invention, thank you :-) Unimaginative Username 21:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You can use "Messers", as in "Messers Smith and Jones". Corvus cornix 01:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen "Messers" before, Corvus. Can you provide a source for this? JackofOz 01:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. There are lots of Google hits for "messers". Corvus cornix 02:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's something I've learned today. One thing to note is that the plural of Mr. is Messrs. In writing, Messrs is distinguishable from Messers; but in speaking they'd sound much the same. So I guess that means they'll soon enough merge into one title term for any group of adults regardless of their gender mix. JackofOz 03:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd never seen "Messers" before, either - in my Google search "messrs" is about 15 times as common, and I'd reckon people have just started writing down what they've heard rather than using the correct written abbreviation for messieurs. Incidentally, in Welsh we've got a similar odd plural for "mistar" (Mr.) - "meistri" (Mri.)! -- Arwel (talk) 07:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think "Messers" for "Messrs." is wrong, even if people write it, just like some may write "accomodation", "neccesery", or "Tolkein", for "accommodation", "necessary", and "Tolkien". To be called a messer is actually rather insulting. Don't use it in your application letter for a job as copy editor.  --Lambiam^Talk 08:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What does the acronym 'Bebo' stand for

What does the letters of the acronym 'Bebo' stand for as in the on-line community Bebo?

Many thanks if you are able to answer,

Craig.[email removed]--82.71.51.179 17:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I assume it's a shortening of peekaboo.--Shantavira 17:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Or Peepo? Skittle 19:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)We have no article on Janet and Allan Ahlberg, or any of their books? How can this be?EDIT:Done. Please improve.

My British family say "Pee-Bo" where normal right-thinking Americans like me would say "Peekaboo!" (so it's not as far from peekaboo as you might think). Tesseran 08:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as i am aware it's not an acronym --194.176.105.39 14:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Urine

Can anyone tell me how the word "Pee" came to be synonomous with Urine?

It's from "piss", which is vulgar and taboo, so using the first letter as a euphonym for the whole word has made it more acceptable. Adam Bishop 22:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

And "piss" is from Old French pissier (to urinate), which comes from Latin pissiare. --Tugbug 22:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Which is also onomatopoeic. Unimaginative Username 00:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arab for "prison"

I thought the Arab word for "prison" sounded vaguely like "bastion", but that's of French origin, and that surely can't be the case? 81.93.102.185 21:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The Arabic word for prison is "sijn", or alternately "mahbas", which are both from pure Arabic roots (sajana and habasa). Bastion is indeed of French origin (though probably ultimately from Germanic), but I suppose mahbas sounds sort of similar...is that what you were thinking of? Or perhaps there is a non-standard borrowing from French in certain Arabic dialects? Adam Bishop 22:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)